A lot of organizations can use deadly force to accomplish their goals. The Mafia, a group of soccer hooligans, just about anyone whose pissed off enough. Corporations do, too - but they do so through governments and local police forces, as a rule. In all cases, of course - including the governmental use of force - there may be a consequence to that use of force (or there may not be).
The US Government has stricter reporting requirements than corporations do, unless national security is involved. I can't imagine any situation involving ICANN that would require the use of deadly force.
For every bureaucratic nightmare that comes out of the government, there are dozens of well-organized, effective services that quietly do their jobs, address the problems for which they were chartered, and do fine. Of course, it's not fun to talk about them.
Be nice if you, oh, I don't know - read the article maybe. There are real journalists who keep blogs, and a lot of blogs are quite precisely not a personal diary. The class to which the article refers to, in fact, specifies that students make blogs that are neither simple collections of links nor "these are my feelings" personal blogs.
So, does every country that's at war have the right to spy on you now? It's OK for India and Pakistan to tap your lines? For Russia to check your mail? Because that's what it's tantamount to. If it's right for the US, it's right for everyone.
You know, it would be so great to land on Mars and find a good taqueria. Hell knows you can't find one in Seattle.
Re:Moving production to Asia?
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 2
Capital can move freely, relatively speaking. Labor cannot. Take a look at the Mexican border someday - US companies can head south to take advantage of cheap labor, but Mexican workers can't head north (legally) to look for better jobs.
I travel about constantly for work, and try to get hotels with broadband, just so I can hook up my A31p (1.7 GHz Pentium 4, ATI Mobility FireGL 7800 with 64 megs VRAM) and punish the unbelieving. It's definitely a better game machine than 95% of the soi-disant desktop gamer's boxes I've seen - runs at 1600 x 1200 without a hiccup. There's some fancies that the FireGL chip doesn't do, and there's a wee bit of niceness that a full-fledged monitor has that this one doesn't, but really I'm hard-pressed to imagine a much better machine all-around for gaming, even though this is primarily a work machine.
Ultimately, this is the future, too. That's a lot of real estate that my monitor and ATX case are taking up (and it's just an Athlon 850, too) - ultimately I see the majority of systems being racked mini pizza-boxes, wafer-thin clients, or laptops.
Far more managers were talks than techs were managers. I'm afraid that you're simply wrong. Techs by their very nature over-focus. They are really good with hammers and assume that they live in NailWorld. Management has some politics in it, but so do techs, and ultimately good management will succeed where overpoliticized (that is, not results-oriented) management will fail. The trick is that bad tech is usually apparent immediately - it won't compile! - while bad management takes a while to come out.
Games of incomplete contigency (that is, action x has result y for some probability P where P Most techs have a very poor understanding of the markets they are in, of their customers, and their competition. (Remember, your customers aren't always your market - that tension is central to a lot of business strategy, and can affect decisions about upgrading.)
I doubt I've penetrated your Dilbert-sphere sense of the structure of the business world, but someday, if you're lucky, you may realize just how much you've been missing.
Cato Institute papers lost all credibility for me when I looked at the references to 2 of them, and discovered that the vast majority of the citations were - to other Cato Institute papers. Logrolling at its worst. I recall one paper - "demonstrating" that literacy was higher before public schools were developed - in which all the references save one were to other Cato papers, and that one was taken out of a context: an early 19th century French journalist was commenting on the literacy of his wealthy Bostonian friends' families, and his comment was interpreted by the paper as a study of American literacy rates in the early 19th century.
Cato has the credibility of the Flat Earth Society, at this point. And the paper you linked to has no references to back it up, either.
According to Catholic dogma, Roman Catholics believe that complete submission to the pope is required for salvation.
Not only is that a caterogical lie, according to Catholic doctrine, you don't even need to be Baptized or believe in God or "accept J.C. as your personal saviour" to be redeemed. All you need to do is to recognize your fallen nature in some way, and wish for redemption. That is "baptism by desire."
I'm an athiest, incidentally, but such crude anti-Catholic sentiment needs to be countered.
As a complete aside, I've been making more and more mistakes (miss steaks! ha ha) like that lately. I keep typing homonyms or near-homonyms instead of the appropriate word. It doesn't happen with difficult or unusual words, either: it happens with words like steak and stick. I'm a good writer and have been for a while - I don't really know what's going on. It's almost like some kind of aphasia.
There are connectionist models to explain it: poor lateral inhibition for phonetically similar words, or the such. Still, it's weird. Maybe Oliver Sacks can show up and explain it to us.
You are insane, you realize that, no? How will a qwerty keyboard the size of a large candy bar give you RSI in a way that a dvorak one wouldn't? We're talking hunt-and-peck all the way.
"Pure capitalism." The term is virtually meaningless. That's the part I don't understand, nor do, I think, any of the people who use it. What does "purity" have to do with capitalism? Capitalism is the private ownership of some means of production for profit, end of story. Capitalism may include markets, or there may be for a variety of reason monopolies within it. Ownership itself, the concept and the reality, is a socially constituted and defended institution, enforced by governments. So any capitalism is inherently impure. Nor does capitalism as such require that there be competition - even in a simplistic model of capitalism, if no one chooses to compete (better opportunities elsewhere, lower costs of entry, supply bottleneck, time-to-market problems), there's no competition. As long as the production is privately owned with investment for a return, it's capitalism.
Says who? Very few markets more significant than lemonstands and prostitutes have trivial barriers to entry. Bottlenecks (including access bottlenecks - remember, unless providers actually own a cable-wide swath of land to every house in the country, they are using public land), limited resources, well-capitalized existing players who can afford to starve you out - all these things are part of any real capitalism.
Economics isn't about the little toy-models that you grab from game theory, it's about unthinkably complex open systems - if they can even be called systems - with limited and often incorrect information.
This sort of music can actually be made very well with Csound. Kim Cascone has done some pieces in this style using Csound.
The article left out the Raster-Noton folks, like N0t0, and musicians like Ryoji Ikeda, Gas, and some of the Mille-Plateaux artists who really got "laptop music" (the term I've always heard) off the ground. Still, a good start.
Re:Hark! Yon Radioplay Doth Sucketh Verily!
on
Homogenized Music
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Just like George Lucas and the other vendors of schlock film don't have to worry about the millions of over-30 people who don't watch 40 movies a year, the Warners and Sonys and such don't really care about the millions of over-20's who only buy a handful of albums each year, and get a lot more bang for their buck by peddling one mega-star whose every bit of merchandise kids will eat up. The savvy mature music listener isn't enough of an economic force to displace the Brittney Spears and boy-bands from the center stage, or from the radio.
If you haven't figured out that the guy who controls the narrative franchise can make up mean down, can completely ignore anything that compromises continuity, and in fact is in charge of logic, physics, and the Existence of God (all of which are subject to change at the drop of a quill), then you really haven't got it yet.
There is no Leia. There is no Anakin. There is no C-3P0. There's only a bloated megalomaniac and the huge, uncritical fanbase that throws money at him.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Why pay good money for goons when you can have the taxpayers pay the goons for you?
The US Government has stricter reporting requirements than corporations do, unless national security is involved. I can't imagine any situation involving ICANN that would require the use of deadly force.
For every bureaucratic nightmare that comes out of the government, there are dozens of well-organized, effective services that quietly do their jobs, address the problems for which they were chartered, and do fine. Of course, it's not fun to talk about them.
A logician wouldn't see the negative. A linguist or a cognitive scientist would.
Be nice if you, oh, I don't know - read the article maybe. There are real journalists who keep blogs, and a lot of blogs are quite precisely not a personal diary. The class to which the article refers to, in fact, specifies that students make blogs that are neither simple collections of links nor "these are my feelings" personal blogs.
So, does every country that's at war have the right to spy on you now? It's OK for India and Pakistan to tap your lines? For Russia to check your mail? Because that's what it's tantamount to. If it's right for the US, it's right for everyone.
You know, it would be so great to land on Mars and find a good taqueria. Hell knows you can't find one in Seattle.
Capital can move freely, relatively speaking. Labor cannot. Take a look at the Mexican border someday - US companies can head south to take advantage of cheap labor, but Mexican workers can't head north (legally) to look for better jobs.
Ultimately, this is the future, too. That's a lot of real estate that my monitor and ATX case are taking up (and it's just an Athlon 850, too) - ultimately I see the majority of systems being racked mini pizza-boxes, wafer-thin clients, or laptops.
Games of incomplete contigency (that is, action x has result y for some probability P where P Most techs have a very poor understanding of the markets they are in, of their customers, and their competition. (Remember, your customers aren't always your market - that tension is central to a lot of business strategy, and can affect decisions about upgrading.)
I doubt I've penetrated your Dilbert-sphere sense of the structure of the business world, but someday, if you're lucky, you may realize just how much you've been missing.
Cato has the credibility of the Flat Earth Society, at this point. And the paper you linked to has no references to back it up, either.
Not only is that a caterogical lie, according to Catholic doctrine, you don't even need to be Baptized or believe in God or "accept J.C. as your personal saviour" to be redeemed. All you need to do is to recognize your fallen nature in some way, and wish for redemption. That is "baptism by desire."
I'm an athiest, incidentally, but such crude anti-Catholic sentiment needs to be countered.
There are connectionist models to explain it: poor lateral inhibition for phonetically similar words, or the such. Still, it's weird. Maybe Oliver Sacks can show up and explain it to us.
Yikes - I avoid products that are billed as being available in "groovy red and melody blue." I'll steak to teal and maroon, thanks.
You are insane, you realize that, no? How will a qwerty keyboard the size of a large candy bar give you RSI in a way that a dvorak one wouldn't? We're talking hunt-and-peck all the way.
Um, entry is by a keypad. You may want to actually look at it.
4098 colors. Rougly 12 bit color (with some voodoo to add two colors).
Speaker. The Nokia has a speaker.
"Pure capitalism." The term is virtually meaningless. That's the part I don't understand, nor do, I think, any of the people who use it. What does "purity" have to do with capitalism? Capitalism is the private ownership of some means of production for profit, end of story. Capitalism may include markets, or there may be for a variety of reason monopolies within it. Ownership itself, the concept and the reality, is a socially constituted and defended institution, enforced by governments. So any capitalism is inherently impure. Nor does capitalism as such require that there be competition - even in a simplistic model of capitalism, if no one chooses to compete (better opportunities elsewhere, lower costs of entry, supply bottleneck, time-to-market problems), there's no competition. As long as the production is privately owned with investment for a return, it's capitalism.
Economics isn't about the little toy-models that you grab from game theory, it's about unthinkably complex open systems - if they can even be called systems - with limited and often incorrect information.
I've taken to calling them Untied Stationaries.
The article left out the Raster-Noton folks, like N0t0, and musicians like Ryoji Ikeda, Gas, and some of the Mille-Plateaux artists who really got "laptop music" (the term I've always heard) off the ground. Still, a good start.
Just like George Lucas and the other vendors of schlock film don't have to worry about the millions of over-30 people who don't watch 40 movies a year, the Warners and Sonys and such don't really care about the millions of over-20's who only buy a handful of albums each year, and get a lot more bang for their buck by peddling one mega-star whose every bit of merchandise kids will eat up. The savvy mature music listener isn't enough of an economic force to displace the Brittney Spears and boy-bands from the center stage, or from the radio.
That's incorrect often enough to make you a very poor choice for a purchasing agent.
There is no Leia. There is no Anakin. There is no C-3P0. There's only a bloated megalomaniac and the huge, uncritical fanbase that throws money at him.
Tarkovsky is important. His failures are more illuminating than George Lucas' successes.